ultrade_market_price

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what 'last market price' specifically means (e.g., bid/ask/mid, timestamp). For a financial data tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value includes (e.g., price numeric, currency, timestamp) or address potential complexities like invalid symbols or data freshness. For a market price tool in a financial context, more context is needed for reliable use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'symbol' documented as 'Market symbol, e.g. sol_eth'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get last market price') and the resource ('by pair symbol'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'ultrade_market_depth' or 'ultrade_market_history' by focusing specifically on the most recent price. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'ultrade_market_last_trades', which might provide similar recent trade data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'ultrade_market_last_trades' (potentially similar) and 'ultrade_market_depth' (different data), there's no indication of which tool to choose for specific price-related queries. The agent must infer usage from tool names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.